From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marcotte v. Holahan

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Nov 8, 2013
111 A.D.3d 1343 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-11-8

In the Matter of Pamela MARCOTTE, Petitioner, v. Paul HOLAHAN, Commissioner of Environmental Services and City of Rochester, Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County [Evelyn Frazee, J.], entered March 18, 2013) to annul a determination finding petitioner guilty of specified*837acts of misconduct and imposing a penalty of demotion. Chamberlain D'Amanda Oppenheimer & Greenfield LLP, Rochester (Matthew J. Fusco of Counsel), for Petitioner. Robert J. Bergin, Corporation Counsel, Rochester (Yvette Chancellor Green of Counsel), for Respondents.


Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County [Evelyn Frazee, J.], entered March 18, 2013) to annul a determination finding petitioner guilty of specified*837acts of misconduct and imposing a penalty of demotion.
Chamberlain D'Amanda Oppenheimer & Greenfield LLP, Rochester (Matthew J. Fusco of Counsel), for Petitioner. Robert J. Bergin, Corporation Counsel, Rochester (Yvette Chancellor Green of Counsel), for Respondents.
MEMORANDUM:

Petitioner, an employee of respondent City of Rochester, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination finding her guilty of specified acts of misconduct and imposing a penalty of demotion. Contrary to petitioner's contention, the determination is supported by substantial evidence, i.e., “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” ( 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183). Additionally, we conclude that the penalty of demotion “is not so disproportionate to the offense[s] as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness, and thus does not constitute an abuse of discretion as a matter of law” (Matter of Szczepaniak v. City of Rochester, 101 A.D.3d 1620, 1621, 956 N.Y.S.2d 362 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, and VALENTINO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Marcotte v. Holahan

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Nov 8, 2013
111 A.D.3d 1343 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Marcotte v. Holahan

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Pamela MARCOTTE, Petitioner, v. Paul HOLAHAN…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Date published: Nov 8, 2013

Citations

111 A.D.3d 1343 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 7363
974 N.Y.S.2d 836